Sep 9, 2006 4:30:00 PM cite

Andries Botha: A very interesting question. The question is more about how much evil becomes necessary, and which imperfections are considered imperfect. So on the one hand should we absorb the developments of science that will solve and alleviate the terrible disease, and at what level does that begin to interfere with the balance of our humanity? At what level is our – what happens when we begin to kind of deal with imperfections, human imperfections as perceived? So, it is a tough question [and I’m] not sure that I’m capable of answering it. ‘Cause once you allow genetic engineering you have to embrace to possibility that the good and the bad will come with it.

by Andries Botha

Sep 9, 2006 4:30:00 PM cite

Angaangaq Lyberth: Answertext will be available soon.

by Angaangaq Lyberth

Sep 9, 2006 4:30:00 PM cite

Anthony Arnove: I actually don’t feel qualified to answer this question because I don’t understand enough about genetic engineering to answer it and I really don’t also understand the question’s definition of defects and imperfections, although, I will say that certainly the concept of defects and imperfections has a political basis that I think should be foremost in how that question is addressed.

by Anthony Arnove

Sep 9, 2006 4:30:00 PM cite

Anuradha Koirala:

by Anuradha Koirala

Sep 9, 2006 4:30:00 PM cite

Anuradha Mittal: I see genetic engineering as an imperfection itself. So, I don’t know how one could use technology to correct. And then more important, I am not sure I understand what is an imperfection as who gets to define what a defect is? Who gets to define what is imperfect? If all of us were to do that, we would have a society like that Hitler tried to create. So, I am a little bit wary of when people talk about using technology to actually fix imperfections or fix so-called defects. I think it’s the differences that make this world far more beautiful and perfect.

by Anuradha Mittal

Sep 9, 2006 4:30:00 PM cite

Ashok Gangadean: I think this question actually answers itself. Because although they are potentially harmful forms of genetic engineering, this question is asking what kind of genetic engineering should be allowed to correct defects and imperfections. In dealing with the frontier of science, there is always an unknown dimension, which we don’t want to foreclose. Because great new innovations are always coming and can come. So, we want to remain open. But I think human wisdom requires that we always be cautious, experimentally cautious and test carefully as possible before we take risks that can be harmful to humanity. Clearly, genetic engineering has a potential to correct defects and imperfections in the human genome and in our genetic reproduction. And, so the question is saying that those that may help to correct these defects are obviously the ones to select carefully, experimentally, and encourage, while also at the same time being cautious to ones that might bring irreparable harm. And that really is the line of wisdom I think that we need to follow.

by Ashok Gangadean

Sep 9, 2006 4:30:00 PM cite

Audrey Kitagawa: Before that question can be answered, I think we have to understand what is the capability of genetic engineering to correct defects and imperfections. I don't think that we are at the state where all kinds of defects and imperfections can be created [speaker probably meant "corrected"]. So until there are technologies that address the kinds of defects and imperfections that can be corrected and we have fully come to understand what the implications of those corrections can hold for the human family, this is a very difficult question to answer at this point in time. I think that we have very much taken an interest in seeing how imperfections of the body can be corrected and in particular with the rise of plastic surgery to see how we can correct facial flaws or defects. And some plastic surgeries have a very beneficial effect, for example in children who are born with cleft palates. So, but then you have people who often, may often become obsessed with imperfections that they perceive within themselves that are actually distorted and really need to be addressed more in the realm of the --by the psychiatrist than by the plastic surgeon. So we really need to look deeper into this whole question of [audio ends]

by Audrey Kitagawa

Sep 9, 2006 4:30:00 PM cite

Avi Primor: I wouldn't dare to answer such a question at all. The scientists and researchers can do it. I think those people who try to limit these inventions and developments talk about things they don't understand. I wouldn't dare it.

by Avi Primor

Sep 9, 2006 4:30:00 PM cite

Benjamin Fahrer: Defects and imperfections are a part of nature. And what should we allow to correct these defects? Should we allow parents to genetically engineer there children because they want them to look a certain way? That’s what we’re saying when we’re genetically engineer things to nature. We want things to be the way we want them to be. And actually nature, your model, it has these imperfections; these defects actually we want tweak for our benefit. There is a mystery in life that we have no understanding of this mystery that is embedded within all of life. Something we see as an imperfection or a defect, it is a part of the web of life. To be tweaking with nature’s design, we must ask, why are these defects and imperfections there in the first place? And if there once that are from people, we must look at the environment that we are damaging and seeing what it is that we are doing that might result in this imperfections. If we genetically alter things to then correct these defects, imperfections, this is a band aid fix over much greater problem. We’re erasing the problems away, not fully addressing the issue. This issue, this is the big one.

by Benjamin Fahrer

Sep 9, 2006 4:30:00 PM cite

Benson Venegas: I personally think not. And the reason of that is because imperfection and defect are part of a natural process to insure species natural selection. From that perspective, we are also taking in consideration that there is a [process implicit] in the way things evolve in nature. But this consideration, this problem has a human dimension. And I think it has to do more with farmers, itself. Because of the lack of choices offered to a small holder farmer, to make their own decisions about their technologies, and the lack of information about long-term benefits and costs of their decisions, potential costs include dependency on technology. And genetic engineering is a way also that creating this dependency and it's disrupting the natural process. Also farmers are selecting genetic improved materials, from a process of - a large process of domestication of species that come over ancient times. And that lead us, or give the legacy, to humanity, of a large number of the food - of the crops that really is part of our source of food in humanity. So, we have to re-think a little bit about this paradigm, and really come as a global community to make the right decisions in the way that we could have something that could really create the conditions of affecting many countries that are not using this type of technology.

by Benson Venegas

Sep 9, 2006 4:30:00 PM cite

Bill Joy: I think we should distinguish between modifications that effect only you and modifications that might affect all your children. In the case of engineering to fix defects in your person, I don’t see any particular reason to constrain that. I think that’s a matter of personal choice. The issue of what kind of genetic modifications we ought to make that can be heritable, that can be passed on to your children is an issue of regulation. There’s clearly a societal cost to—unintended consequences of such modifications. And we have to decide ethically, in each society decide ethically, what such defect correction and imperfection correction would be allowed. I understand the arguments against allowing such modifications but I think that it should largely be left up to the individuals.

by Bill Joy

Sep 9, 2006 4:30:00 PM cite

Bora Cosic: I don’t know, I don’t posses knowledge in this field.

by Bora Cosic

Sep 9, 2006 4:30:00 PM cite

Brian J. Weller: This is a question – I don’t think I can answer this question. I really don’t know what to say. I don’t know.

by Brian J. Weller

Sep 9, 2006 4:30:00 PM cite

Catherine David: It is always certainly... This question is both, justifiable and extremely circumventive because the whole question is located on the line between genetic transformations in order to correct serious imperfections and the transition of using genetic transformations in order to correct defects that are not so serious and that are not necessary to correct. So, this subject nearly leads us to the questions of genius and to the culture of embryos in order to produce tissue, to replace spinal cord, why not. In contrast, the genetic transformations and manipulations which make a couple have a child with blue eyes, with green eyes and with pink eyes seem to me very problematic. It seems to me that if these kinds of methods existed before, we would be less numerous. If we are not able anymore to accept somebody with a crooked foot …. and a crooked foot has never prevented a personality from developing, from creating, from thinking and from producing. So I think that there really is a frontier which is not that difficult to be found but to impose because up from the moment we can transform, cultivate cells in order to repair spinal cords, we can also transform a human being.

by Catherine David

Sep 9, 2006 4:30:00 PM cite

China Keitetsi: Answertext will be available soon.

by China Keitetsi

Sep 9, 2006 4:30:00 PM cite

Constantin von Barloewen: […] where famines really don't occur, where they can be relieved, we should use it where it can help to improve people's state of health, for instance in the struggle against cancer, but we should use it very carefully, because indeed whole branches of industry often make the genetic material subject to their partly unscrupulous speculation and mercantilization and thus they can evoke as much danger as they can do good.

by Constantin von Barloewen

Sep 9, 2006 4:30:00 PM cite

Cornel West: It is hard to specify what kind of genetic engineering should be allowed to correct defects and imperfections, one because we’d have to define exactly what we mean by defections and what we mean by imperfections. And, of course, who is going to decide if it has to do with the general consensus regarding the elimination of certain kind of disease: if we are talking about curing cancer, if we are talking about curing AIDS, if we are talking about curing leukemia, wonderful. On the other hand, if the -- dealing with issues that are more vague and oblique, then to what degree does genetic engineering itself begin to collapse into eugenics and we’re beginning to make distinctions about what kinds of human beings ought to be here and what kind of human beings ought not? It’s a much more dangerous question. We are here in Germany, of course, where the Nazi regime made eugenics a central part of their program because their perception of certain imperfect people and defective people. I think that the physically challenged brothers and sisters have the same sanctity and dignity as any other group of human beings, and this is very important to affirm, especially here at this gathering. At the same time, there is no doubt that genetic engineering can win, rightly used, promote, and enhance life in general and human life in particular.

by Cornel West

Sep 9, 2006 4:30:00 PM cite

Dedi Baron: Answertext will be available soon.

by Dedi Baron